Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 1 of 12
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11414
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cv-02511-VMC-TBM
ANDRZEJ MADURA,
ANNA DOLINSKA-MADURA,
Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants
Counter Claimants-Appellants,
versus
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
f.k.a. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP,
Defendant-Appellee,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Third Party Plaintiff
Counter Defendant-Appellee,
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,
Counter Defendant,
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 2 of 12
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT,
Unknown Tenant 2, et al.,
Third Party Defendants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 8, 2018)
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andrzej Madura and Anna Dolinska-Madura (collectively, “the Maduras”),
proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s denial of their Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 60(b)(6) motion in their foreclosure proceeding, following the
entry of judgment of foreclosure and grant of summary judgment in favor of
defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), on the Maduras’ claims under the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) 1 and BOA’s counterclaim for
foreclosure. We affirm.
1
12 U.S.C. § 2605(b), (c), (e).
2
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 3 of 12
I. BACKGROUND
A. Underlying Facts
On July 26, 2000, Madura obtained a residential home loan from Full
Spectrum Lending, Inc. (“Full Spectrum”), and signed a promissory note; he and
his wife, Dolinska-Madura, signed the mortgage. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
(“Countrywide”), purchased the loan from Full Spectrum on July 31, 2000. In
March 2001, the Maduras contacted Countrywide and requested to repay their loan
in full; Countrywide informed them that a prepayment penalty applied and sent
them a payoff demand statement that included a $5,036.84 prepayment penalty.
In May 2001, the Maduras sent Countrywide a letter demanding immediate
rescission of their loan agreement based on alleged fraud and forgery. While
Countrywide refused to rescind the loan, it agreed to waive the prepayment
penalty. The Maduras did not repay the loan in full; they instead continued making
monthly mortgage payments until November 1, 2006, at which point they ceased
making payments. In April 2007, Countrywide sent Madura a notice of default and
acceleration. In 2009, Countrywide changed its name to BAC Home Loans
Servicing, L.P. (“BAC Home Loans”); in 2011, BAC Home Loans merged with
BOA. BOA sent Madura a re-notice of default and acceleration in February 2012;
Madura did not cure the default.
3
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 4 of 12
B. Procedural History
1. Prior Cases
After the Maduras sent Countrywide the letter demanding rescission of their
loan, they initiated multiple lawsuits in state and federal courts. In 2002, the
Maduras filed a state-court action against Full Spectrum and Countrywide,
contending that the defendants had fraudulently altered and forged their loan
documents (“Madura 1”). The Florida state court determined that all claims were
subject to the arbitration agreement that Madura admittedly had signed at the loan
closing. Dolinska-Madura subsequently filed an amended complaint against
Countrywide; the state court granted summary judgment in favor of Countrywide.
The Maduras filed multiple appeals to no avail.
In 2006, the Maduras filed a lawsuit in federal court against Full Spectrum
and Countrywide (“Madura 2”). The claims were nearly identical to those raised
in state court. The district court dismissed Madura’s claims in favor of arbitration
and granted summary judgment on all of Dolinska-Madura’s claims. We affirmed.
Madura v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 344 F. App’x 509, 519 (11th Cir.
2009).
In 2010, the Maduras filed a state-court action against BOA and it was
removed to federal district court (“Madura 3”). The district court dismissed the
action with prejudice. The district court found that “each and every claim that has
4
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 5 of 12
been advanced in this action against Bank of America [was] addressed and finally
adjudicated.” Madura v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 8:10-CV-523-T-33AEP, 2010
WL 2821936, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2010).
The Maduras filed three additional lawsuits in state court between 2011 and
2012. In October 2011, they filed an action against the attorneys who had
represented them in the previous actions (“Madura 4”). In January 2012, they filed
a claim against Countrywide (“Madura 6”). The state court dismissed Madura 4
and Madura 6, because it lacked jurisdiction and the claims already had been
adjudicated in Madura 1 and Madura 3.
2. The Instant Case
In between filing Madura 4 and Madura 6, the Maduras filed the action at
issue in this appeal (“Madura 5”). Following removal from state court, in
November 2011, the Maduras filed a pro se amended federal complaint in district
court against BOA and BAC Home Loans. The Maduras alleged that the
defendants had violated several provisions of the RESPA. After discovery, BOA
moved for summary judgment on the Maduras’ RESPA claims and on its
counterclaim for foreclosure. The district court entered a final judgment of
foreclosure on August 13, 2013; the Maduras appealed.
In 2014, we affirmed the district court’s judgment. Madura v. BAC Home
Loans Servicing, LP, 593 F. App’x 834 (11th Cir. 2014). We affirmed the district
5
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 6 of 12
court’s rejection of the rescission and fraud-based arguments; we concluded that
the Maduras had failed to present any admissible evidence supporting their
contention that the note was forged. Id. at 843-46. Additionally, as to the forgery
and fraud-based arguments, we also relied on Madura 2 and Madura 3 to
determine that some of the Maduras’ claims were collaterally estopped and cited
Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Eng’g, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013), in support.
Madura, 593 F. App’x at 843-44. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Maduras’
petition for a writ of certiorari. Madura v. Bank of America, N.A., 136 S. Ct. 133
(2015).
After the case was closed, the Maduras filed numerous motions and appeals,
all of which were unsuccessful. 2 In February 2017, the Maduras filed the instant
Rule 60(b)(6) motion, for relief from the district court’s July 2010 order of
dismissal with prejudice (in Madura 3) and the July 2013 grant of summary
judgment of foreclosure (in Madura 5). The Maduras asserted that our recent
opinion in CSX Transportation, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc., 846 F.3d 1333 (11th
Cir. 2017), undermined our reliance on Tampa Bay Water, which was cited in our
2014 affirmance.
2
See, e.g., Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 655 F. App’x 717 (11th Cir. 2016);
Madura v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., No. 16-14870, 2017 WL 5988381 (11th Cir. Dec.
4, 2017).
6
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 7 of 12
The Maduras also filed an emergency motion to set aside, or alternatively
stay, the district court’s confirmation of the foreclosure sale and the writ of
possession order, pending a ruling on their Rule 60(b)(6) motion. They asserted
that BOA had purchased the property in the foreclosure sale and is still the owner
of the property. The district court denied the Maduras’ Rule 60(b)(6) motion and
their motion to set aside the judgment. 3 The Maduras filed a notice of appeal from
the district court’s denial of their Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
On appeal, the Maduras argue that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to issue the foreclosure judgment and make a rescission determination,
which we affirmed, because the loan was rescinded and the loan rescission issue
was not presented in the pleadings. We review questions regarding subject matter
jurisdiction de novo. See Stovall v. City of Cocoa, 117 F.3d 1238, 1240 (11th Cir.
1997). Appellate courts have a responsibility to examine the subject matter
jurisdiction of the district courts in actions that they review. Williams v. Best Buy
Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2001). In a given case, a federal district court
must have either: (1) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or
3
The Maduras also filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). However, the district court had not ruled on that motion at the time that the
Maduras filed their notice of appeal.
7
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 8 of 12
(2) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Baltin v. Alaron Trading
Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). Federal question jurisdiction exists
in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, the district court had federal question jurisdiction in the
underlying proceeding, as the Maduras raised claims under the RESPA, 4 a federal
statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Baltin, 128 F.3d at 1469.
The law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation of issues that were decided
either explicitly or by necessary implication in an earlier appeal of the same case.
This That & The Other Gift & Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb County, 439 F.3d 1275, 1283
(11th Cir. 2006). The law-of-the-case doctrine can be overcome only when: (1)
since the prior decision, new and substantially different evidence is produced or
there has been a change in the controlling authority; or (2) the prior decision was
clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice. Id.
In a recent appeal by the Maduras, we rejected their argument that the
district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over their case because the loan
rescission issue was not framed by the pleadings. Madura v. BAC Home Loans
Servicing, L.P., No. 16-14870, 2017 WL 5988381, at *3 (11th Cir. Dec. 4, 2017).
We recognized that the Maduras’ argument about whether rescission was raised in
the pleadings was not a jurisdictional issue, because there is no requirement that
4
12 U.S.C. § 2605.
8
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 9 of 12
the prior servicers bring an action in order to provide the district court with subject
matter jurisdiction. Id. The Maduras’ subject matter jurisdiction arguments raised
in the instant appeal are, once again, an attempt to re-argue that their loan was
rescinded in 2001. Id. Accordingly, their arguments are barred by the law-of-the-
case doctrine and the Maduras have failed to show that any of the exceptions to the
law-of-the-case doctrine are applicable. See This That & The Other Gift &
Tobacco, 439 F.3d at 1283. As to a change in controlling authority, although the
Maduras rely on CSX Transportation as new relevant controlling authority, that
case is inapplicable to their case, as explained below.
B. Rule 60(b)(6) Motion
The Maduras also argue that the district court abused its discretion by
denying their Rule 60(b)(6) motion because our recent decision in CSX
Transportation, 846 F.3d 1333, is applicable to their case. Rule 60(b) allows a
party to seek relief or reopen his case based upon the following limited
circumstances: (1) mistake or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence;
(3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been discharged; and (6)
any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion seeking
relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must be filed within a reasonable time. Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(c)(1). The appeal of a Rule 60(b) motion is limited to a determination of
whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion and shall not
9
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 10 of 12
extend to the validity of the underlying judgment per se. Rice v. Ford Motor Co.,
88 F.3d 914, 918-19 (11th Cir. 1996).
To demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying a Rule
60(b) motion, a movant must prove some justification for relief and cannot prevail
simply because the district court properly could have vacated its order. Solaroll
Shade & Shutter Corp. v. Bio-Energy Sys., Inc., 803 F.2d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir.
1986). Rather, the movant must demonstrate a justification so compelling that the
court was required to vacate its order. Id. Additionally, more than a mere change
in the law is necessary to provide grounds for Rule 60(b)(6) relief; the petitioner
must persuade us that the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant
relief. Ritter v. Smith, 811 F.2d 1398, 1401 (11th Cir. 1987).
In CSX Transportation, we addressed the issue of whether federal common
law applies state collateral estoppel rules or federal collateral estoppel rules, when
determining the preclusive effect of a judgment rendered by a federal court
exercising diversity jurisdiction. 846 F.3d at 1337. We explained that our case
law on this issue was conflicting and, in relevant part, noted that, in Tampa Bay
Water, we had determined that federal common law incorporates collateral
estoppel as defined by federal law to determine the preclusive effect of issues
decided by a federal court that exercised diversity jurisdiction. Id. However, in an
earlier case, Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 404 F.3d 1297
10
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 11 of 12
(2005), we had held that collateral estoppel was defined by state law in that
circumstance. CSX Transp., 846 F.3d at 1339-40. Relying on the earliest
precedent rule, we held that federal common law borrows the state rule of
collateral estoppel to determine the preclusive effect of a federal judgment where
the court exercised diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 1340.
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Maduras’
Rule 60(b)(6) motion. See Rice, 88 F.3d at 918-19. First, to the extent that the
Maduras are attempting to utilize CSX Transportation to undermine the district
court’s opinion in one of their prior cases, they may not use Rule 60(b). See
Cavaliere v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 1111, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993) (stating that
Rule 60(b) cannot be used as a substitute for a properly-filed appeal).
As to the Maduras’ challenge to the adjudication of their underlying
foreclosure proceeding, more than a mere change in the law is necessary to warrant
Rule 60(b)(6) relief. See Ritter, 811 F.2d at 1401. Regardless, CSX
Transportation does not apply because the Maduras’ relevant prior cases were
adjudicated under federal question jurisdiction, not diversity jurisdiction. See CSX
Transp., 846 F.3d at 1340; see also Tampa Bay Water, 731 F.3d at 1179
(explaining that federal preclusion principles apply when a prior federal decision
was decided under federal question jurisdiction). Further, the district court’s
summary judgment order did not depend exclusively on preclusion; it included
11
Case: 17-11414 Date Filed: 05/08/2018 Page: 12 of 12
alternative, merits-based reasons for denying the Maduras’ claims and defenses,
which we addressed and affirmed. See Madura, 593 F. App’x at 841-50.
AFFIRMED.
12